Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.
AIR 2014 SC 1400: (2014) 3 SCC 92
JUDGES: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan, Ranjana Prakash Desai, Ranjan Gogoi and S.A. Bobde
Date of Decision: 10-01-2014
FACTS:-
The present reference has been arisen out of various views being expressed by the Supreme Court and different High Courts on the scope and extent of the powers of the courts to arraign any person as an accused during the course of inquiry or trail as envisaged under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The initial reference was made be a two-judge bench in Hardeep Singh’s case where noticing the conflict between the judgments in the case of Rakesh v. State of Haryana [AIR 2001 SC 2521] and a two-Judge Bench decision in the case of Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq & Anr. [AIR 2007 SC 1899], a doubt was expressed about the correctness of the view in Mohd. Shafi’s case. The reference was desired to be resolved by a three-judge bench and the same came up for consideration and the Court opined that in view of the reference made in the case of Dharam Pal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr [(2004) 13 SCC 9], the issues involved being identical in nature, the same should be resolved by a Constitution Bench consisting of at least five Judges. The Bench felt that since a three-Judge Bench has already referred the matter of Dharam Pal to a Constitution Bench, then in that event it would be appropriate that such overlapping issues should also be resolved by a Bench of similar strength. Hence the present matter.
ISSUE:-
Several issues have arisen before the Court for consideration which were: –
- What is the stage at which power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised?
- Whether the word “evidence” used in Section 319(1) Code of Criminal Procedure could only mean evidence tested by cross-examination or the court can exercise the power under the said provision even on the basis of the statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned?
- Whether the word “evidence” used in Section 319(1) Code of Criminal Procedure has been used in a comprehensive sense and includes the evidence collected during investigation or the word “evidence” is limited to the evidence recorded during trial?
- What is the nature of the satisfaction required to invoke the power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure to arraign an accused? Whether the power under Section 319(1) Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused summoned will in all likelihood convicted?
- Does the power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure extend to persons not named in the FIR or named in the FIR but not charged or who have been discharged?
JUDGMENT:-
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, for the first and third issue, has concluded that in Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana [(2014) 3 SCC 306], the five-judge bench has already held that after committal, cognizance of an offence can be taken against a person not named as an accused but against whom materials are available from the papers filed by the police after completion of investigation. Such cognizance can be taken under Section 193 Cr. PC and the Sessions Judge need not wait till “evidence” under Section 319 becomes available for summoning an additional accused. Section 319 of the code specifically uses two expressions which have to be taken care of i.e., Inquiry and Trial. When a trail commences after framing charges, an inquiry can be understood as a pre-trial inquiry. Inquiries under Sections 200,201,202 Cr. PC and under Section 398 Cr. PC are species of the inquiry envisaged under sec. 319 Cr. PC. Materials collected during the inquiries can be used for corroboration of evidences recorded in the court after the commencement of the trial, for the exercise of the power under Section 319 of the code, and also to add an accused whose name has been shown in column 2 of the charge-sheet. From the above view, the word “evidence” has been broadly understood and not literally i.e., an evidence brought during a trial.
The Court, for the second issue, has concluded that under Section 319 of the code a person against whom material is disclosed is only summoned to face the trial and in such an event under Section 319(4) of the code the proceeding against such person will commence from the stage of taking cognizance and the court need not wait for the evidence against the accused proposed to be summoned to be tested by cross-examination.
The Court, for the fourth issue, has stated that though under Section 319(4) (b) of the code the accused subsequently impleaded is to be treated as if he had been an accused when the court initially took cognizance of the offence, the degree of satisfaction that will be required for summoning a person under Section 319 of the code would be same as for framing a charge. The degree of satisfaction for summoning the original and the subsequent accused may differ when the trail has already stared against the original accused and the materials were disclosed against the subsequent accused during the course of trial. If any accused is freshly summoned then this will delay the trial, therefore, the degree of satisfaction for summoning the accused (original and subsequent) has to be different.
The Court, for the fifth issue, has stated that if a person has not been named in the FIR or though named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted or a person who has been discharged can be summoned under Section 319 of the code provided it appears from the evidence that such person can be tried along with the accused already facing trial. However, if an accused who has been discharged has been concerned then the requirements of Sections 300 and 308 of the code have to be complied with before any he can be summoned afresh.
HELD:-
The Court held that power under Section 319 of the code is an extra-ordinary and discretionary power and should be used sparingly in those cases where the circumstances so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.
To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts, Please click here
To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here
